The majority of Israeli citizens voted for a centrist government and received one of the most extreme right-wing governments in the history of Israel instead.

A call should be made to the Consumers Council: This is a case of wholesale fraud. In the sea of thieves, embezzlers and crooks around us, this is the largest deceit of all. The majority of Israeli citizens voted for a centrist government, perhaps even a bit left of center, and received one of the most extreme right-wing governments in the history of Israel.

We voted for Kadima, which promised convergence and an end to the occupation. We voted for Ehud Olmert, the left flank of Ariel Sharon, who was carried aloft (solely) on the wings of the disengagement's success. We voted for Shimon Peres, who always promises peace. We voted for the Pensioners, who did not speak like right-wingers. We voted for the Big Bang, which was supposed to be a harbinger of a pragmatic turnabout. And what did we receive? The world already knows and we should also recognize this: a benighted, right-wing government.

The 28,000 participants in a recent survey by the BBC World Service in 27 countries ranked Olmert's Israel, together with Ahmadinejad's Iran, as the countries having the most negative influence on the world. The current government is largely responsible for the fact that Israelis do not care that they are viewed this way. In a country where people are quick to sue a travel agency for a vacation package that did not meet their expectations, the masses of voters who fell victim to the great fraud remain silent.

The settlers establish another illegal outpost in Hebron, and most Israelis are not interested in the most criminal settlement of them all. And what does their government say? A front is already forming to oppose the evacuation. The Arab League extends its hand for peace and the 52 percent of Israelis who have heard of the Saudi initiative say it could constitute a basis for negotiation. And what does their government say? It makes a sour face and quashes the chance. There are signs of a chance to liberate Gilad Shalit and create a new atmosphere with the Palestinians; 45 percent of Israelis are in favor of releasing prisoners "with blood on their hands" and only 36 percent are opposed. And their government? It categorically rejects the Palestinian proposal. The majority of Israelis tell the pollsters that they are in favor of establishing a Palestinian state and evacuating settlements. And what is their government doing to realize the aspirations of its voters? Not a thing. It has been a long time since such a wide disparity has existed between the views of the public and the government, a disparity that makes democracy look like a bandage.

This gap reaches its peak in the case of the building in Hebron. In a government that raised the banner of evacuating settlements, there are quite a few ministers who are opposed to evacuating a building that was inhabited without a permit. Even a single building. Who are these opponents? Is it only Avigdor Lieberman? The prime minister himself has already promised not to evacuate the building, according to MK Effi Eitam. There is also Roni Bar-On from the "moderate" Kadima party, Eli Yishai from Shas and even Rafi Eitan from the Pensioners. "Israeli territory" is what Eitan calls the heart of the Palestinian city, where nearly 20,000 residents have already been forced to flee in fear of the settlers.

Never have the settlers been in a worse situation in terms of public opinion. Never has their situation been better in the government. After we thought the disengagement had rid us of their caprices and that they had been proved a paper tiger, the government is again intimidated by them, as in their heyday. The Marzels are provoking again, and they are winning again. How many Israelis have ever visited Hebron? How many of them have seen the dreadfulness with their own eyes? And look at how many of them are willing to continue to suffer the misdeeds of the settlers, to pay such a steep price for them, and to remain silent.

There is no protest in Israel and no center. Only radicalism speaks: The fragments of the far left still go out to protest, and the settlers continue with their extortion. If once their source of strength was broad public support, their source of strength now is an all-encompassing apathy. In a comatose society, the settlers can terrorize Olmert, Bar-On and Eitan. In a comatose government, inaction is turning into extreme right-wingedness.

But now we are also coming under suspicion. Perhaps when we are voting for the center and the left, we actually want the right? Maybe what we really want is a nationalistic, rightist government, and that all of the rest - the ostensibly enlightened talk about ending the occupation and evacuating settlements, human rights and a Palestinian state - is nothing more than a loathsome falsehood and self-deception?

To get the latest from HaaretzFollow @HaaretzomLike us on Facebook and get articles directly in your news feed

David said Rabin sent a letter, and I said that, no, the importance was that there was an "exchange of letters".
David simply ignores that point, and says that Rabin simply sent "a letter".
David is wrong - he did not; he exchanged letters. A BIlateral committment, not a UNIlateral one.
David, if Rabin just "sent a letter" - and especially *if* it was a meaningless letter because Rabin had his fingers crossed behind his back - then ALL the subsequent agreements between the PLO or the PA are null and void.
One of the three planks upon which the quartet justifies Israeli intransigence is then kicked out from under it, and the hypocrisy of insisting that one side stick to "agreements" that the other side need not be bound by is exposed.
IF the exchange of letters was not binding then the Oslo Agreement is illegitimate, and so is each and every following agreement signed between the State of Israel and the PLO or the PA.

"David quotes himself as saying 'after that conflict'".
No, my puppy, I'm quoting you in 262 then pointing out your errors. Again, little one, return to school and study reading comprehension. It seems I can't tell you often enough...
"Agreed; 'a letter' is a unilateral committment." (Just to make sure, that's you I'm quoting JB, don't lose track) That's not agreed. A letter is not a commitment. It is a statement of intent by a PM, nothing more. It's not a commitment until the legislature agrees.

I went back to 175 and the first mention of NGO Monitor is JB's post 251. However, I do remember he and I talked about it, but no clue which thread. I think he posted that as a reply to another thread where he claimed demanded I give one NGO that agrees with Israel's view. I can't find either his or my originations, so I think it's a cross post.
This one just has his nonsense about claiming the ICRC isn't an NGO. Very funny, it gets me every time. Remember his argument? In 229, puppy says because Switzerland makes clear that the ICRC is independent of the country and has a "sovereign nature", that means it's not a "non-governmental organization. Still makes me laugh...
As for NGOM, "it is a front" because former members of the govt are in it. I pointed out that is true of most NGOs. However, note that only when Israelis are involved it must be bad.
"lying little coot". If so, where'd 251came from? I can't find me mentioned NGO Monitor before that, certainly not in 244-9.

DT: "He never addressed the difference between a "letter" and a "treaty". "
OK, let's look at this, shall we?
David talks about "a letter". Says that "a letter" is not "a treaty".
Agreed; "a letter" is a unilateral committment, while "a treaty" is a bilateral committment.
But here's the funny thing, David; "a letter" is not the same as "an exchange of letters".
And what Rabin and Arafat did was to "exchange letters", not send each other "a letter".
When you "exchange letters" you are entering into a BILATERAL international agreement that enables both sides to commit towards a common goal; in this case, agreeing on the mutual recognition that makes any agreements between Israel and the PLO legitimate, binding, international agreements.
Which means that "exchange of letters" must have also been a legitimate, binding, bilateral international agreement.
Which makes that "exchange of letters" into "a treaty".

David quotes himself as saying "after that conflict" when refering to his gaff about the 1948 war. Looking back at his post #259 and - Gosh! - the phrase "after that conflict" is nowhere to be found. Revisiting and rewriting your posting history now, David?
Double-plus-good double-speak; Orwell would be proud of you.
But you DID say this:
DT: "The Arab signantories haven`t ever honored it"
They have honored it, and they have also violated it. Most nations do at some stage.
But that's the funny thing, David; the GCs explicitely say that violations by ONE side does not abrogate the obligation on the OTHER side.
You can not point to a violation and say "all bet's are off". You can not justify YOUR side's violations of the GCs - the obligations are ABSOLUTE, not CONTINGENT.
But at least you concede the Arabs are signatories, and therefore the GCs bind them. That's something.
You might be interested to know that the PLO also assented, in 1989.

On my claim that ratifying a treaty does not make it domestic law:
DT: "That`s exactly what happens when a treaty is ratified. It becomes part of the laws of the nation, by which its citizens must abide."
He is, of course, wrong about Israeli law. Let's hear what the EXPERTS on the IHCJ say about this, in ABD AL NASSER V IDF Commander 1987:
"Israeli law distinguishes between international customary law and international conventional law. International treaties that create new rights create such rights and obligations between states, but do not confer them upon individuals. Such treaties do not become part of the country's municipal law in the absence of legislation to such effect by the Knesset. On the other hand, the customary international law is part of the country's municipal law. Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention is part of the international conventional law, not the customary law, and, therefore, is not part of Israeli municipal law."
So, David, you were saying?

DT: "1) He said I couldn`t refer to a single NGO"
I didn't, of course. I linked to the ICRC in one of my posts, and DAVID claimed it was "just an NGO".
I said it is not; it is a sovereign entity.
DAVID also asked *ME* for "independent sources" for my claims, and I provided three links to Haaretz. DAVID then claimed that Haaretz is not independent, and proffered his own idea of an "independent source" - something like !!!!!NGO Monitor!!!!
I pointed out that NGO Monitor is neither "unbiased" nor is it "Non-government" - it is a front for Israeli government propaganda.
But at no time did I make the claim that David attributes to me i.e. "He said I couldn`t refer to a single NGO"
Lying little coot, aren't you....

Notice:
1) He said I couldn't refer to a single NGO
2) I did
3) He foams
He makes a demand, I answer it, he's upset because I did. note how he's incapable of saying "oops, sorry, I was wrong" about anything other than his regular grammatical issues. Not about his lies. It's just part of his universe.
He claims that because former govt people are involved, it can't be an NGO -- against all facts, including that most NGOs have former govt members. He has to ignore that. Why? Because then he'd also have to admit, as NGO Monitor documents, that many anti-Israel NGOs are actively funded by governments (http://www.ngo-monitor.org/articles.php?type=funding). Ooops.
Also, there are more NGOs who agree (Middle East Info and others), but JB sticks with tangents.
"But you don`t see a pattern there, do you David?" Of course: You hate, you lie, if lies don't work you try to obfuscate. It's a regular pattern.

Then he's back to the regular dreck.
Ignoring posts on the GC, preferring just to repeat rather than address.
"protected persons", civilians yes, and I've never denied that, despite JB's lies. Members of terrorist organizations are exempted as the GC point out (another handy bit of ignoring the GC when he needs to...).
"ratification of a treaty does NOT make that treaty part of Israeli law." Wow, yet another, no longer amazing, stupendously ignorant statement by the puppy. That's exactly what happens when a treaty is ratified. It becomes part of the laws of the nation, by which its citizens must abide.
Meanwhile, notice his lie. He never addressed the difference between a "letter" and a "treaty". He can't do it, so he hopes you lurkers will ignore that.
"I have ALREADY quoted", and I've already quoted the statement about the body of law serving as the underpinning of Israeli Military Law in the disputed territories. Yet, unsurprisingly, puppy has never acknowledged that.

"48" "after that conflict". I'll type slowly to help him: The war began in 48 and has continued. The Arab signantories haven't ever honored it, with massacres of surrendered Israeli troops in '67 and '73, and Hamas & Hizbullah openly saying they're not interested in the GC because it violates Sharia.
Meanwhile, didn't the puppy claim that the HC had become customary by that time and should have been followed by all nations? Didn't the GC derive from the HC? Typically inconsistent.

Let's compare it to, say, B'Tselem
B'TSELEM
Dedicated to highlighting Israeli human rights and humanitarian abuses in the occupied territories. You therefore *expect* it to be staffed by human rights lawyers, academics, journalists, etc.
And, lo!, you find that it is i.e. it is exactly what it proports to be.
NGO MONITOR
Dedicated to correcting the "misreporting" of Israeli human rights "violations" by other NGO's.
You therefore expect it to be staffed by the zionist equivalent of the very NGO's it criticizes i.e. staffed by zionist lawyers, academics, journalists, and media professionals appalled by the misuse of the media.
And - lo! - you find this:
Publisher: ex-Israeli Ambassador/senior advisor to Sharon.
Editor: Senior consultant to the Israeli govt.
Webmaster: ex-staff of IDF Spokeman's office.
All transfered FROM the Israeli govt, even tho it is PRETENDING to be an NGO.
But you don't see a pattern there, do you David?

DT: "We`re using common law, some of which originated in Jordanian law."
Common Law is a legal system where prior judicial rulings set "precedents" in law.
This claim of David's does not stand up to any scrutiny, because the jurisdiction in the occupied territory is MILITARY law not Israeli Law, common or civil.
I have ALREADY quoted David the IHCJ statement were the court has explicitely said that Israeli Law does NOT apply in the occupied territory. David ignores this, and continues with his make-believe world.
Laws in the occupied territory is not made by judicial precedent; it is the law as it existed pre-1967, or as overridden by military directives that can ONLY be justified on a security basis.
David, when the military commander arrests someone under the 1960 Jordanian Penal Code 16 he is not doing so using some (unnamed) common law "some of which originated in Jordanian law". He is ACTUALLY USING the 1960 Jordanian Penal Code 16 to arrest that palestinian.

DT: "Israel is a signatory. As you still don`t comprehend "ratification", the Knesset had to agree before the country could be one."
David, I am not talking here about when a treaty becomes binding on the state.
I *am* talking about how the State can avoid having violations of that treaty examined by its own supreme court, because ratification of a treaty does NOT make that treaty part of Israeli law.
THAT is my point; Israel blythly claims that this treaty "does not apply" and there is nothing that the Israel Supreme Court can do to examine THAT claim, because the govt refuses to enshrine the treaty into domestic legislation, which it is OBLIGED to do.
The Court can rule on violations of individual articles if those articles restate customary law, but not on the applicability of the GC as a whole.
The govt has DELIBERATELY put itself above judicial scrutiny, because it KNOWS that its claim will not withstand that scrutiny.
Open your eyes, David, and get a clue.

Straw man arguments are much more to David's liking:
DT: "while occasionally complaining that "occupation" isn`t defined, though used, so he then defines it himself."
*sigh*. I'll repeat this AGAIN, because David is lying AGAIN.
The definition of "occupation" does not appear in the Geneva Conventions. The Geneva Conventions simply explains (Art 6) what happens to the Articles of the GC when "armed conflict" ends but one of the HCPs engaged in that "armed conflict" remains in "occupation" of land.
Does that mean that David *or* I get to make up the definition of what "occupation" is?
No, it does not. There is a definition of "occupation", and it is binding on all nations, and it is found in Article 42 of the Hague Conventions 1907.
Nothing in that Article says that the land under occupation must be the sovereign property of another HCP, so David is very wrong in claiming that "occupation" can only occur when you seize land belonging to another HCP.

Yet he sits there and yells that he's winning!
DT: "He just can`t handle that the GC describes relationships between HCPs, including civilians of those HCPs"
Wrong; the GC describes the obligations on a HCP when THAT HCP engages ANOTHER HCP in armed conflict (Article 2) and/or in any occupation that then follows (Article 6).
I keep asking David to quote from the GC to support his erroneous claim, and he refuses, even tho I have pointed him to the relevent Articles (2 and 6).
His matra is wrong; when YOUR HCP engages ANOTHER HCP in armed conflict then YOUR soldiers must treat all the civilians they meet as "protected persons".
When the armed conflict between HCPs ends then so does the GCs EXCEPT where there is still "occupation".
So if it is YOUR soldiers who are occupying that land then YOUR soldiers remain bound by some articles, and the civilians living there are STILL "protected persons".
Your Claim Is Wrong, and you aren't even attempting to prove it right.

I'm afraid the Schism between your mind and objective reality is irreconcilable, David.
Must be, if you think the takeover of mainland China by the communists was an example of a war of conquest.
No, David, it was regime change via an armed insurrection. No different than the communist takeover of Russia (also not immediately recognized by "the West", who tried to reinstall the "legitimate" white russians in the early '20's by force) or any number of other - countless other - examples of the loosing side in a civil war maintaining of a "rebel province".
The existence of that rebel province allowed the USA to refuse to recognize the "new" regime until, of course, even an ol' commie-baiter like Nixon had to face reality.
But conquest? Hahahah! No, David. Civil War and regime change; once that new regime was recognized as the legitimate govt of China - as it clearly had been for decades - then the Taiwanese govt had to give up its UN seat.

DT: "it was `48 when the Arabs invaded. Show me where the Egyptians and Jordanians accepted the GC. They didn`t"
Of course, it would have been very difficult for any nation to accept the **1949** Geneva Conventions when engaged in fighting with an opponent in **1848**.
That NONE of the belligerents AT ALL were signatories to the GCs until after that conflict is, I guess, an understandable oversight for David to make.
That the Conventions THEMSELVES did not exist when the conflict began is, well, an illustration of how removed David is from reality.

Still running away from the conquest bit with other countries, so I'll throw in another: Communist China. The UN recognized the conquest in the '70s, by kicking out the previous and still extant government from whom Mao had conquered the mainland.
He still refuses to admit that:
1) The Arabs turned down a 2nd Pal State
2) Jordan & Egypt controlled
3) Israel controls
4) It is disputed territory in the former British Mandate.
Armistice violations
Brits & UN making a decision V purely Israeli "self-determination".
Where I directly quoted him lying about my claims (multiple places).
Military law changing as can civil law
Addressing the Arab declared wars and calling for them to end the wars.
This thread's done, but I'll certainly use it to point to in the future. Thanx, JB, for playing the game. Your loses continue to help the cause of we Zionists.

"Israel hasn`t." Israel is a signatory. As you still don't comprehend "ratification", the Knesset had to agree before the country could be one. It's done.
"So the IHCJ can rule" as I've repeatedly said. Again, he's pointless.
"demanded some evidence that Israel uses Jordanian Law" again a puppy lie. I said show that we're using Jordanian Law. We're not. We're using common law, some of which originated in Jordanian law. Gosh, if most modern legal codes have some link to Hamurabi, that means we're all using Mesopotamian law?
"Jordanian Law". JB talks about the UN so much, but ignores that the UN didn't recognize Jordan's annexation. Therefore, by his own arguments, Jordanian law was illegal in the territories.
"based", no, as my link and quote showed, it's based on numerous laws, only part of which is Jordanian. JB doesn't like to recognize that, it defeats his fantasy world.
"Those posts caused me some difficulties." Yes, reality does that to JB.

Haaretz.com, the online edition of Haaretz Newspaper in Israel, and analysis from Israel and the Middle East.
Haaretz.com provides extensive and in-depth coverage of Israel, the Jewish World and the Middle East, including defense, diplomacy, the Arab-Israeli conflict,
the peace process, Israeli politics, Jerusalem affairs, international relations, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, the Palestinian Authority, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip,
the Israeli business world and Jewish life in Israel and the Diaspora.